I was at a family gathering. People were splitting into groups and playing games. I usually try to bring a few games that aren't to tough to learn. Lately I have been fortunate that I found a twilight struggle enthusiast in the family. Unfortunately he wasn't there this today.

They play many games and even own ticket to ride. One "gamer" family usually refuse to try and learn new games as they say it's too difficult. They will only play the games they bring as they spent the time to learn them.

I ended up playing risk the new version with my Brother in law, father in law and Uncle in law. We played a game of risk because my uncle in law said he new the rules. We started and of course they made a set up errors which mis favored me which I ignored as this was a friendly game. My father in law gets mostly destroyed in the first few turns because of bad roles and poor start location. I take over South America in the beginning and Africa. My brother in law takes Europe and my uncle in law nearly takes Asia. This is where it gets hairy. They decide that you can move any number of units in the maneuver phase. Which of course makes all borders really strong. I wasn't playing like that and tried to argue with the rulebook which they said I was misinterpret the rules and I ended up ticking off my brother in law because I looked in the rules. We had a non-aggression packed but he placed all his units ready to strike Africa. So I took the backdoor and conquered the UK to break his bonus. So he had it out for me which am not a big deal. He ended up breaking through Africa the next turn. My father in law usually always just targets me in games( I wonder why) I had three peoples focus on me while I was the only one taking a territory from Asia every turn to break the huge boost in troops from the bonus. It became impossible to cover anything because people just kept moving troops all over the board instead of the one territory to one connecting territory it was move whatever you want as long as it connects. They also argued with me that you couldn’t move the rest of your attacking forces into your newly won territory which they finally conceded but thought I was playing wrong. I could have played better of course. I was leading the game at one point but I bite off more then I could chew, after a bad attacks and bad defense rolls and of course borders being ridiculously reinforced creating hammers everywhere I ended up being in a tough spot. It was a really frustrating game because it removed any strategy in the game which made it a complete dice fest which I believe it is to begin with but this just made it worse. I sometimes enjoy an occasional risk game with the right people but next time I see the box come to the table I will run. It's too much luck. Armies sprout out everywere. Attack with a hammer, punch some holes and hope you roll better than the other guys.

They decide that you can move any number of units in the maneuver phase. Which of course makes all borders really strong. I wasn't playing like that and tried to argue with the rulebook which they said I was misinterpret the rules and I ended up ticking off my brother in law because I looked in the rules.

If you were playing the "new" version (Risk: Revised), your brother-in-law was right. It specifically says on the "Ending Your Turn" rule card that you may: "Take as many troops as you'd like from one of your territories and move them to one other connected territory. (Remember to leave at least one troop behind - you cannot abandon a territory.)."

You were correct about being allowed to "move the rest of your attacking forces into your newly won territory". They had it wrong. You must move in at least the number of troops as dice you rolled during the attack and you must leave at least one troop in the territory you attacked from, but other than that, you most certainly CAN move troops used in the attack into the conquered territory.

A common complaint about Risk is that it is a "luck fest", but superior players always seem to win against poor players. That seems to be a paradox, eh? Also, contrary to appearances, the more dice rolled, the less "luck" there is. Strategy and tactics win the day. A successful attack is a 3:1 odds attack. Most people do not calculate the odds before they attack, and just assume that superior numbers alone should ensure victory. A 21 army to 11 army attack is still 1:1 odds and generally ends in an exchange or damage to the attacker. One would need 33 armies to have 3:1 odds in that attack. You can read the rules to the game here:

Yes from one territory, they were moving everything on the map at the end of the turn. Putting everything where they wanted it. It says from one territory to another not completely reconfigure all troops in adjoining territories.

I usually win the risk game when we play out of the last 3 games I won 2. This one I got ganged up on, no superior player can always win. Not that I would consider myself a superior player. Even thought that attacking other players made more sense, I was the target most of the time even though other attacks would have made more sense for continent control.

It's an ok game, rating is based on my desire to play it. I just prefer games that are a little bit less luck based and that offer more strategical value. One player rolled 7 "6" in a row with one dice. Two of those "6" were in a previous battle and 5 were against me. Anything can happen but I was rolling bad nearly the whole game anyways. Another time attacking 3 to 1 twice I lost 6 troops and his one troop survived.

Edit:When I played online with XBox it only allowed one move after battles not unlimited.